SAN JOSE, CA - AUGUST 10: Job seekers read pamphlets as they wait in line to enter the HIREvent job fair at the Doubletree Hotel on August 10, 2011 in San Jose, California. As the national unemployment rate sits at 9.1 percent, the labor department announced results of a Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey that showed nearly 3.1 million jobs were open at the end of June, a slight increase from May's upwardly revised 3.0 million. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Ran on: 08-20-2011
Job seekers attend an event in San Jose last week. Only Nevada's 12.9 percent jobless rate is worse than California's.

Among recent job postings placed by Anderson Staffing, a San Francisco "full service staffing boutique that specializes in the placement of attorneys and legal personnel," was the following:

"Two openings for Corporate/Transactional Legal Secretaries in the Finance/Real Estate departments." Salary: $70,000-$80,000 a year. "We are also looking for a Legal Sec/EA (executive assistant) to Managing Partner." Salary: $80,000-$90,000 a year.

Among the must-have qualifications for the positions: "solid large law firm experience," "very flex for overtime," "friendly, polished and team player," "take charge type of person - large presence ... not meek."

Oh, and one other, as posted on CareerBuilder.com and HotSanFranciscoJobs.com: applicants must be "currently employed."

In New Jersey, such a posting would be illegal. A law signed by the state's Republican governor in March expressly prohibits posting a job ad that "knowingly or purposely" states that "qualifications for a job include current employment" - or that lack of same is an automatic disqualifier.

But not, as yet, in California, where the unemployment rate is 11.7 percent, or anywhere else in the nation.

"When I first found out about this, I thought, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, who said he will introduce legislation similar to the New Jersey law soon after Sacramento reopens for business in the new year.

"Being unemployed in this economy is stigma enough," he said. "But the fact that you can eliminate an entire class of people from competing for a job is unacceptable."

It's not surprising, in a highly competitive job market, that companies might prefer applicants who are already gainfully employed over those who have been out of work and may have lost their skills. "Some employers may use current employment as a signal of quality job performance," said University of Colorado law Professor Helen Norton, testifying at a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionhearing in February.

The practice first came to light last year, when it was reported that mobile phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson had added "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all" language to a job posting at its Atlanta headquarters. Since then, the practice appears to have spread.

Norton said companies and employment agencies have applied the "no unemployed allowed" sticker on jobs ranging from electronic engineers to restaurant managers and mortgage underwriters (oh, the irony!).

Employers that have used the "must be currently employed" language in job postings, according to a survey conducted by the National Employment Law Project in March, include the Cypress Hospitality Group, advertising for a kitchen manager in San Francisco, and the University of Phoenix, looking for a professor to teach at its Fresno campus.

Legislation to ban discrimination against unemployed job applicants is moving through state houses in New York, Illinois and Michigan. Similar legislation has been introduced in Congress, and President Obamahas sought to attach a provision to his American Jobs Act.

All are designed, in the words of the National Employment Law Project, "to prohibit the perverse catch-22 that requires workers to have a job before they can get a job."

That same catch-22, it observed, "is deepening our unemployment crisis by arbitrarily foreclosing job opportunities to many who are otherwise qualified for them" ( www.nelp.org).

No place? Thumbing through Mayor Ed Lee's plan to turn around the Mid-Market area, we particularly liked the idea of "community safety ambassadors" patrolling Market Street "to provide escorts to and from public transit stops and focus on cleanliness and safety issues between the hours of 11 a.m. and 8 p.m."

We are also pleased to see more businesses moving in, like Dottie's True Blue Cafe,which is relocating from Jones Street to Sixth Street; and we got especially excited at a reference to the long-delayed CityPlace retail complex between Fifth and Sixth Streets - the supposed centerpiece of the area's revitalization - breaking ground in "early 2012."

Unfortunately, that came as news to people who are more familiar with the project's progress, or lack thereof. Last time we checked, in July - several months after CityPlace's first scheduled groundbreaking - the project was waiting for new financing to replace the money lost when the original financier defaulted on the loan (it's a long story).

Calls to the project's broker at Collier's International, who used to be quite chatty on the subject, were not returned. Neither were calls to the mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development, nor to the developer, Urban Realty, wondering if the project is actually dead in the water.

Let's hope not.

Saved: Glad to report that Natural Resources, the pregnancy and early parenting resource center on San Francisco's Valencia Street, has been rescued from the financial straits threatening its closure after 25 years. The community fundraising drive we mentioned in Sunday's column exceeded its $45,000 goal, thus keeping it in business, hopefully for another 25 years.